No. The circuit diagram is not a preprogrammed processor. It's not a processor at all.
If you stick a processor in a door, you've added a more expensive part that now has to have someone program it before it can be used. You've also gained nothing over your competitors who use a common off-the shelf component that costs far less than what you've designed. Companies that stay in business tend to try to avoid making mistakes like that.
640K Natalie Portman Goatse's when the walls fell on the first post by a naked, petrified gay jew eating hot grits while finding your ideas intriguing and wanting to subscribe to your newsletter in space should be enough for anyone.
Although there are probably a lot of slashdotters who would enjoy seeing Natalie Portman do a goatse, so that might actually make things worse.
A Google search for "640K ought to be enough for everybody" only returns about 17,400 results, so it seems the joke will be around a lot longer than you were hoping.
While I agree with the gist of your post, automatic shop doors don't usually have computers attached do them. They use fairly simple circuits that are triggered by changes in the reflected signal. So far, circuits like that are cheaper than a computer, though we're getting to the point where that might stop being true.
Here's an example, though commercial products will usually use a single-chip solution rather than building their own circuit. You can buy those chips for around $.50 these days.
Arson, assault, bail jumping, bigamy, breaking and entering, bribing a police officer, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, cemetery desecration, child abandonment, child abuse, contempt of court, discharging a firearm within city limits, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, domestic violence, drug possession, drunk driving, failure to pay child support, incest, indecent exposure, improper disposal of hazardous waste (like contaminated needles), kidnapping, loitering, obstruction of justice, perjury, possessing lockpicks, probation violation, public intoxication, rioting, shoplifting, tampering with a consumer product, trespassing, vandalism, vehicular assault, violating an open container law.
Why don't you go ahead and try using Word 2003+ on a machine where you can't read the character set before you write those icons off as useless?
I am the absolute last person you want to try and use that logic on.
I work in tech support for a product that's distributed in English, French, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Italian, Turkish, Chinese, Hungarian, Japanese, Russian and Swedish. I don't speak most of those languages, yet I can figure out what the menu items are.
It's not that hard. You try something and see what it does. Anyone who sat down and spent a little time with a program in a foreign language could do the same.
On Ribbon-based word, I can't read the menus on the menu bar, but I can go across clicking each one until I see an icon that looks like it does what I'm looking for.
Because you can't do that with text menus? I don't have words to describe how absolutely fucking stupid that statement is.
So clicking through menus is easier than clicking through the ribbon's tabs?
When I said the ribbon bar was a menu that stays open, I was equating them. Clicking through menus isn't any different from clicking through the ribbon's tabs to me, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
Excel's insert tab does not include insert column or insert row by default. Instead, you have to go to the home tab, click an insert button to get a drop down menu of text options (yeah, the very thing that you seem to think is cryptic and hard to understand), but it's not in a single line across the top of the screen, so you have to hunt for it among all the other buttons. This is what I mean by "worse in some ways", because it's a stupid design decision.
That wasn't the point of my post, however, so I did not expand on it. The person I replied to somehow thinks that nothing was organized before the ribbon bar existed. Apparently they believe that items were randomly scattered on the menus without any organization. That is completely wrong and that was the point of my post.
Personally I find it quicker to get to what I want with the ribbon, instead of hunting through menus filled with often cryptic text
That's your personal preference. I find text to be more descriptive than an abstract icon. Regardless of how you create an interface, there will be group of people will insist it's better because it suits their personal taste. Those people don't recognize others' preferences and are all too eager to force their own preferences on everyone else. Those people suck.
The biggest productivity improvement of all is the styles bar that gives you quick access to five styles without the need for a drop-down menu. When writing documents that is the thing I click on most,
That's the biggest productivity improvement for you. Other people don't work like you do and sometimes the thing they most commonly use most was removed from the ribbon bar, which reduces their productivity.
You've assumed that an improvement for you is an improvement for everyone and demonstrated how self-centered you are. I would say that I hope that you're done, but I know there's no chance of that. You'll come back with some inane reply explaining how wonderful the ribbon bar is based on your own personal preferences because you're incapable of recognizing that the world doesn't revolve around you.
All that stuff was categorized before the ribbon bar existed. There were these things called drop-down menus across the top of the screen. Each one had a title and things under it were related to that title.
The ribbon bar basically forces one of those drop down menus to always be displayed and the user can switch which one is displayed and adds icons that make so little sense that they still require text labels.
Graphically it may be pretty, but it is not an improvement and it some ways it is worse.
But they are practicing exactly what they're getting better at.
Playing a Wii game involves not just hand-eye coordination, but hand-eye-display coordination. You have to learn not just to move your hand, but to anticipate the effect that moving your hand will have on the objects on the display. Laproscopic surgery requires the exact same type of coordination.
Some states do permit consent, but many don't and people have been charged with assault over practicing consensual BDSM.
Boxing gets by because it's considered socially acceptable where BDSM practicioners are involving sex which, as we all know, is completely unacceptable by the prudes that run our country. Sex bad. Violence good.
> Why do I feel that most of the people claiming this is unethical are all the same person.
Because dismissing all of the people who are telling you that you're wrong as one nutcase with multiple accounts is far easier than acknowledging that you're actually wrong and everyone knows it.
They're scanning large numbers of websites and putting vulnerability information up on a public website for anyone to view without notifying the website owners, much less giving them a chance to fix the problems before sending hackers their way. There's nothing ethical about that.
It's not flamebait because following the link would provide you with as many citations as you care to look at. Here's one since you're too lazy to click the link and choose a result: http://www.micron.com/products/nand-flash/slc-nand
"Durable: At 100,000 PROGRAM and ERASE (P/E) cycles, our SLC NAND is one of the most robust and reliable NAND technologies available."
Now you have your citation. You can stop giving knee jerk responses that ignore the fact that there's more than one type of flash memory out there.
Who's to say that Carlin is wrong in his basic premises explained in the video?
Anybody with half a clue.
His entire bit is based on the premise that length and quality of human life doesn't matter. Some day humans will go extinct, so it's okay for us to hasten that by fucking up the environment and make the planet unlivable as quickly as possible.
If you believe that is in any way acceptable, then you should know that you'll die some day too. Why not start drinking Drano today? The length and quality of your life doesn't matter, after all. Right?
Alternately, you might want to reconsider taking environmental and/or philosophical advice from stand-up comedians.
Rain drops on the lens from video shot on real cameras is really annoying
Heh. You clearly don't wear glasses. Raindrops on the lens is absolutely normal to me, so it doesn't seem even slightly out of place when I see it in a game.
"None of our tests reliably stimulated defecation, which seemed to occur most when cows were exposed to novelty."
Going to www.novelties.com redirects to www.bobbleheads.com, so we can only conclude that the study needs more bobbleheads (it has enough cowbell, I think).
I'm quite certain that "the organizations that trained him" could not explain why the person that I replied to thought that Dorner was in any way exercising 2nd amendment rights. I was calling that person out for saying something stupid. I'm not sure how you interpreted my post as anything else, but congratulations on completely missing the point.
You've suffered several major comprehension failures.
1) "Gun nut" was the terminology used by the post I was replying to. I used it to make a point.
2) I didn't say that Dorner was a "gun nut." In fact, I said that gun nuts generally wouldn't support him.
The fact that you managed to completely misread a two sentence post is beyond me. Maybe you were too busy concocting your drawn out rant to notice that I didn't say any of the things you were objecting to?
Corrupt police railroading a cop that tried to expose their corruption, but because the law enforcement itself was corrupt, he uses 2nd amendment solutions.
I don't really like gun nuts, but only the loopiest ones would say that Dorner is doing anything other than trying to get revenge for his perceived persecution.
Slashdot Mirror
No. The circuit diagram is not a preprogrammed processor. It's not a processor at all.
If you stick a processor in a door, you've added a more expensive part that now has to have someone program it before it can be used. You've also gained nothing over your competitors who use a common off-the shelf component that costs far less than what you've designed. Companies that stay in business tend to try to avoid making mistakes like that.
Tell that to all the people whose good study, work and hygiene habits went to hell after they found WoW.
Just combine them all.
640K Natalie Portman Goatse's when the walls fell on the first post by a naked, petrified gay jew eating hot grits while finding your ideas intriguing and wanting to subscribe to your newsletter in space should be enough for anyone.
Although there are probably a lot of slashdotters who would enjoy seeing Natalie Portman do a goatse, so that might actually make things worse.
A Google search for "640K ought to be enough for everybody" only returns about 17,400 results, so it seems the joke will be around a lot longer than you were hoping.
While I agree with the gist of your post, automatic shop doors don't usually have computers attached do them. They use fairly simple circuits that are triggered by changes in the reflected signal. So far, circuits like that are cheaper than a computer, though we're getting to the point where that might stop being true.
Here's an example, though commercial products will usually use a single-chip solution rather than building their own circuit. You can buy those chips for around $.50 these days.
Arson, assault, bail jumping, bigamy, breaking and entering, bribing a police officer, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, cemetery desecration, child abandonment, child abuse, contempt of court, discharging a firearm within city limits, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, domestic violence, drug possession, drunk driving, failure to pay child support, incest, indecent exposure, improper disposal of hazardous waste (like contaminated needles), kidnapping, loitering, obstruction of justice, perjury, possessing lockpicks, probation violation, public intoxication, rioting, shoplifting, tampering with a consumer product, trespassing, vandalism, vehicular assault, violating an open container law.
Clearly it all involves computers!
Why don't you go ahead and try using Word 2003+ on a machine where you can't read the character set before you write those icons off as useless?
I am the absolute last person you want to try and use that logic on.
I work in tech support for a product that's distributed in English, French, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Italian, Turkish, Chinese, Hungarian, Japanese, Russian and Swedish. I don't speak most of those languages, yet I can figure out what the menu items are.
It's not that hard. You try something and see what it does. Anyone who sat down and spent a little time with a program in a foreign language could do the same.
On Ribbon-based word, I can't read the menus on the menu bar, but I can go across clicking each one until I see an icon that looks like it does what I'm looking for.
Because you can't do that with text menus? I don't have words to describe how absolutely fucking stupid that statement is.
So clicking through menus is easier than clicking through the ribbon's tabs?
When I said the ribbon bar was a menu that stays open, I was equating them. Clicking through menus isn't any different from clicking through the ribbon's tabs to me, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
Excel's insert tab does not include insert column or insert row by default. Instead, you have to go to the home tab, click an insert button to get a drop down menu of text options (yeah, the very thing that you seem to think is cryptic and hard to understand), but it's not in a single line across the top of the screen, so you have to hunt for it among all the other buttons. This is what I mean by "worse in some ways", because it's a stupid design decision.
That wasn't the point of my post, however, so I did not expand on it. The person I replied to somehow thinks that nothing was organized before the ribbon bar existed. Apparently they believe that items were randomly scattered on the menus without any organization. That is completely wrong and that was the point of my post.
Personally I find it quicker to get to what I want with the ribbon, instead of hunting through menus filled with often cryptic text
That's your personal preference. I find text to be more descriptive than an abstract icon. Regardless of how you create an interface, there will be group of people will insist it's better because it suits their personal taste. Those people don't recognize others' preferences and are all too eager to force their own preferences on everyone else. Those people suck.
The biggest productivity improvement of all is the styles bar that gives you quick access to five styles without the need for a drop-down menu. When writing documents that is the thing I click on most,
That's the biggest productivity improvement for you. Other people don't work like you do and sometimes the thing they most commonly use most was removed from the ribbon bar, which reduces their productivity.
You've assumed that an improvement for you is an improvement for everyone and demonstrated how self-centered you are. I would say that I hope that you're done, but I know there's no chance of that. You'll come back with some inane reply explaining how wonderful the ribbon bar is based on your own personal preferences because you're incapable of recognizing that the world doesn't revolve around you.
All that stuff was categorized before the ribbon bar existed. There were these things called drop-down menus across the top of the screen. Each one had a title and things under it were related to that title.
The ribbon bar basically forces one of those drop down menus to always be displayed and the user can switch which one is displayed and adds icons that make so little sense that they still require text labels.
Graphically it may be pretty, but it is not an improvement and it some ways it is worse.
But they are practicing exactly what they're getting better at.
Playing a Wii game involves not just hand-eye coordination, but hand-eye-display coordination. You have to learn not just to move your hand, but to anticipate the effect that moving your hand will have on the objects on the display. Laproscopic surgery requires the exact same type of coordination.
https://ncsfreedom.org/key-programs/consent-counts/consent-counts/item/580-consent-and-bdsm-the-state-of-the-law.html
Some states do permit consent, but many don't and people have been charged with assault over practicing consensual BDSM.
Boxing gets by because it's considered socially acceptable where BDSM practicioners are involving sex which, as we all know, is completely unacceptable by the prudes that run our country. Sex bad. Violence good.
Leave him alone. It's the closest he's ever going to get to an orgy.
> Why do I feel that most of the people claiming this is unethical are all the same person.
Because dismissing all of the people who are telling you that you're wrong as one nutcase with multiple accounts is far easier than acknowledging that you're actually wrong and everyone knows it.
read a book while been driven to work
FTFY
Being.
If you're going to fix someone's sentence, at least do it right.
I'm fairly sure those don't exist. Even the guarded parking lots have disclaimers that say they aren't responsible for theft and damage.
They're scanning large numbers of websites and putting vulnerability information up on a public website for anyone to view without notifying the website owners, much less giving them a chance to fix the problems before sending hackers their way. There's nothing ethical about that.
It's not flamebait because following the link would provide you with as many citations as you care to look at. Here's one since you're too lazy to click the link and choose a result:
http://www.micron.com/products/nand-flash/slc-nand
"Durable: At 100,000 PROGRAM and ERASE (P/E) cycles, our SLC NAND is one of the most robust and reliable NAND technologies available."
Now you have your citation. You can stop giving knee jerk responses that ignore the fact that there's more than one type of flash memory out there.
I don't think 3 Ds will be enough for some people
Who's to say that Carlin is wrong in his basic premises explained in the video?
Anybody with half a clue.
His entire bit is based on the premise that length and quality of human life doesn't matter. Some day humans will go extinct, so it's okay for us to hasten that by fucking up the environment and make the planet unlivable as quickly as possible.
If you believe that is in any way acceptable, then you should know that you'll die some day too. Why not start drinking Drano today? The length and quality of your life doesn't matter, after all. Right?
Alternately, you might want to reconsider taking environmental and/or philosophical advice from stand-up comedians.
Rain drops on the lens from video shot on real cameras is really annoying
Heh. You clearly don't wear glasses. Raindrops on the lens is absolutely normal to me, so it doesn't seem even slightly out of place when I see it in a game.
I agree that lens flare is annoying, though.
Hey, a link to the paper's abstract would have been nice, wouldn't it.
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/applan/article/S0168-1591(13)00013-0/abstract
From the paper's abstract
"None of our tests reliably stimulated defecation, which seemed to occur most when cows were exposed to novelty."
Going to www.novelties.com redirects to www.bobbleheads.com, so we can only conclude that the study needs more bobbleheads (it has enough cowbell, I think).
I'm quite certain that "the organizations that trained him" could not explain why the person that I replied to thought that Dorner was in any way exercising 2nd amendment rights. I was calling that person out for saying something stupid. I'm not sure how you interpreted my post as anything else, but congratulations on completely missing the point.
You've suffered several major comprehension failures.
1) "Gun nut" was the terminology used by the post I was replying to. I used it to make a point.
2) I didn't say that Dorner was a "gun nut." In fact, I said that gun nuts generally wouldn't support him.
The fact that you managed to completely misread a two sentence post is beyond me. Maybe you were too busy concocting your drawn out rant to notice that I didn't say any of the things you were objecting to?
Corrupt police railroading a cop that tried to expose their corruption, but because the law enforcement itself was corrupt, he uses 2nd amendment solutions.
How does murdering a basketball coach and her fiancé fit into that?
I don't really like gun nuts, but only the loopiest ones would say that Dorner is doing anything other than trying to get revenge for his perceived persecution.